DEMOCRACY AND JUSTICE

In democratic countries, their Constitutions are a series of first-order mandates. 

It is the will of the people translated into words with enough force to dynamite one Constituted Power and, in its place, form another, with the same name, but ultimately different. 

Constitutions should be constructed from the law, for the law, in protection of the law, and with the neutrality of the law. This latter task is impossible if their creators or reformers are not neutral jurists, but politicians with deeply rooted ideologies. 

Constitutions, although they are supreme laws, are loaded with political decisions, which, in itself, is not a bad thing; the problem begins when they are not conceived from the neutrality of a rule of law designed to achieve justice for the population. 

In Mexico, a reform to the Constitution was recently carried out, although it was publicly known within the institutions that it was necessary to force, through apparently undue pressure, key votes from senators from other political parties. 

The reform basically consisted of placing dynamite in the columns of a Constituted Branch, such as the Judiciary; the lighting of the dynamite was scheduled for June 2025 and was called "judicial elections." 

Judicial elections are historic, but not positively historic. 

In Mexico, federal judges have been elected through competitive examinations for some time now. 

The competitive examinations are very rigorous and conducted in stages; therefore, many of the public servers who gained access to the position of judge, in addition to their vast experience, had also prepared themselves years before the examinations were held. These are known as career judges. While the competitive examination system for accessing the position of judge is not perfect, it did guarantee that the most qualified candidates were selected. 

Thus, the people, who operate within a democratic system, did not elect their judges by direct vote, which is not undemocratic and, furthermore, guarantees a trial by someone not only qualified but also knowledgeable in the intricacies of the courts and tribunals. 

But why the destruction of a constituted branch of government in Mexico? 

In early 2019, I had the opportunity to attend a national meeting of Federal Judges Coordinators (I was the coordinator for my area). The meeting was convened by the then Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation and the Federal Judiciary Council—the collegial body that administers the Federal Judicial Branch—Arturo Zaldívar Lelo de Larrea. Minister Zaldívar's administration of the Federal Judicial Branch coincided with the first four years of the government of constitutional president Andrés Manuel López Obrador. 

Outside the chamber, our cell phones were confiscated; this level of secrecy drew attention. Already at the meeting, Justice Arturo Zaldívar told the magistrates and coordinating judges that the people had spoken in the last presidential and legislative elections, saying that the people wanted change, and therefore, he said, the Judiciary could not be exempt. 

He also mentioned that if the Judiciary was not reformed from within, it would be reformed from without, because the government had sufficient political power to achieve it. He also warned that within the government, there were radical groups seeking a reform that would truly affect the members of the Federal Judiciary. 

For his part, former President Andrés Manuel López Obrador, among his various campaign promises, had one in particular directed at the Federal Judiciary: to lower the salaries of Ministers, Councilors, Magistrates, and Judges. 

It was with the Federal Law on the Remuneration of Public Servants that an attempt was made to reduce the salaries of the Federal Judiciary. However, amparo lawsuits were filed by those affected. In Mexico, the amparo lawsuit is the preeminent means for the protection of human rights. 

As fate would have it, I was assigned to decide on the first amparo lawsuit against salary cuts. It was brought by a then-serving judge. I knew any decision would cause a stir for many reasons: 1. A federal judge ruling on an issue that was detrimental to him. 2. It was a campaign promise of the ruling political party. 3. The Constitution establishes that no public server can have a higher salary than the President of the Republic, but it also establishes that federal judges' salaries cannot be reduced. 

The injunctions continued, and some federal judges, like myself, granted the injunction to prevent the salary of another colleague from being reduced. 

Legal action was presented in the Mexican Supreme Court, which ordered, for the time being, that the challenged law not be applied and, therefore, that salaries not be reduced. 

Also due to fate, when I was a judge in Mexico City, I was responsible for coordinating the Economic Competition judges (there are only three courts for the entire country). In my capacity as coordinator, I was invited to Justice Arturo Zaldívar's last meeting, which took place at the end of 2022. It should be mentioned that Justice Arturo Zaldívar's administration was highly criticized within the Federal Judicial Branch due to its closeness to the Executive Branch. 

At the meeting, Justice Arturo Zaldívar explained that during his tenure, the salaries of magistrates and judges had not been reduced by a single cent (in which he was right). This task was not easy, as it involved various negotiations with the ruling political force. He basically asked that this achievement be recognized. 

What is a fact is that during the entire term of former President Andrés Manuel López Obrador (December 1, 2018, to September 30, 2024), the salaries of federal judges were not reduced, which meant he failed to fulfill his campaign promise. 

Former President Andrés Manuel López Obrador felt attacked by the Federal Judiciary, which he openly expressed. In his morning press conferences, he projected the names of the federal judges who issued many decisions that, in his view, constituted an attack on his government. His emblematic projects, such as the cancellation of the new Mexico City airport, the construction of the new Santa Lucía airport, and the construction of the Maya Train, were delayed because some judges ordered their suspension. 

The judges also ordered the Covid-19 vaccine for minors (as was my case); they also ordered that daycare centers designed for working mothers and fathers not be closed, among many other decisions. 

Former President Andrés Manuel López Obrador stated in his press conferences that all these judicial decisions, among others, directly harmed his government. Furthermore, they were not only unjustified but also harbored a veil of corruption. 

During Justice Arturo Zaldívar's term, there was indeed a legal reform to the Federal Judiciary; surely, for the government, so many "affronts" could not be forgiven with a reform of this magnitude alone. 

Then came what the government called “Plan C”: reforming the Constitution to dismiss each and every federal and local judge across the country. But a political decision of that magnitude needed justification, and they found it: the election of judges by direct vote, a supposedly democratic exercise that, according to them, would be a world example. 

The Mexican judicial election is an act of revenge; it is the product of the minds of those radical groups that then-Justice Arturo Zaldívar warned about at that coordinators' meeting in early 2019. 

The Mexican judicial election is preceded by the will of the ruling party, motivated by an "affront" that needed to be returned to the judiciary. The Mexican judicial election is one of the biggest political mistakes in the country's history. 

Now judges will no longer study or prepare arduously to reach office, but will instead promote themselves publicly, as any politician does. Some are jurists with judicial careers, but there are not enough of them, and voters don't recognize them. 

The ballots for the judicial election are confusing, while political parties sought like-minded people to promote them, which clearly violates judicial independence. 

With the implementation of the reform, which will be implemented in a first phase in 2025, starting in June, and in a second phase, in the second half of 2027; In Mexico, the people can "celebrate" and "boast" about electing their judges, but the damage will be incalculable when the first rulings begin to be issued that do not obey the constitutional framework, but rather are motivated by political pressure or other interests. At that point, impartiality will cease to exist. 

The damage is done. Mexico will vote for its judges, but there's no idea who they are, their abilities, much less their independence. There's no date to repair the damage. 

---

Follow LexTalk World for more news and updates from International Legal Industry.

---